Was Paul McCartney "Replaced" By a "Double" in 1966?This article by Andrew Johnson at Check the Evidence website discusses PID evidence, whistleblowers, and how Paul's image has been co-opted by the powers that be to further the Agenda. Excerpt:Some years ago, I came across some evidence that Paul McCartney had been "replaced" by a "double" - some time in 1966. Paul was replaced by "Faul". This is, again, one of those stories which people can snort with laughter at, as it just seems unbelievable for so many reasons. A close member of my family who, like me, is a fan of the Beatles found it very difficult (impossible even) to entertain the notion that McCartney could have been replaced. Who can blame him - watching things like "Anthology" or any of the numerous Beatles-related documentaries and interviews makes is hard to believe that "Faul" could have the memories that were really Paul's.

Hi. I'm the person who pointed out the death-head (right) and buttoned-bodybag-with-bloody chin (left) composite photo image in the Magical Mystery Tour film when the Aunt dreams about "food" on the bus. (Aside: apologies to Adam, since I sent him a message and it was for another person, so he got confused and offended.)

I am so glad you've done another PID-cast! I also did an interview on this issue with Dr. Jim Fetzer, professor emeritus of Philosophy of Science, on his Internet radio show "The Real Deal", on Jan 4, 2012.

You can hear it at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/01/clare-kuehn.html#comment-form

Right-click the name link at the top of the comments page. The comments include, at the top, a summary of current evidence, and some analysis of it. After that, some people who couldn't comprehend first things first -- i.e., that if the Italian professional forensics study on Plastic Macca is right, the other circumstances they feel are air-tight against his replacement have to be not air-tight against it.

I have realized that Andrew Johnson, who is great in the interview, called Dr Jim Fetzer a "handler", as if he's an agent. What occurred is that his friend, the physicist Dr Judy Wood, whose work is brilliant and which Fetzer supported and supports, had a disagreement about something and Johnson is convinced so far that this meant Fetzer was an agent.

Fetzer may not always be perfect, but he's no agent and Johnson rushed to an emotional conclusion on that.

This does not diminish your interview as such, however, or Johnson's other observations as such. But it is worth mentioning, to get that clear. My interview is with Fetzer, who struggled personally for quite some time before accepting the topic, and has personally gone out on a limb in presenting it now. His resistance is personal, and he's recognized that some topics may seem odd but not be odd at all. However, he does not pursue anyone's points of view simply because they're adamant. He's thus been sometimes wrong in dismissing and right to dismissing. This is human, having nothing to do with being a disinfo artist.

Your interview is detailed as well as at least mentions some of many relevant topics (such as Dave McGowan's brilliant though sometimes indefinite work, in his blog series, "Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation" at http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/ (which Google won't always find, so people should copy the address into their browsers; Google often shows other people's copies of the work, and those often have no photos). I'm so glad you did your interview!

Johnson's comments, in the interview, other than about Dr Jim Fetzer are very perspicacious, insightful.

this was a great interview. The remarks aginst Jim Fetzer are without merit. On Jim Fetzers bogspot there are two recent podcasts about PID, one with Claire and one with Total Info. If you go back to old podcsts there is another with Total Info, all worth listening to

The remarks about Fetzer are NOT without merit. If you read my book, you will see where and why they are grounded. I am well aware of his recent podcast and I have personally met Totalinfo (in 2008). Read this free book: http://tinyurl.com/911ftb if you want the truth. I strongly suspect something similar is going on with PID research as with 911 research.

Looks like the comment posted on Feb 6, 2012 08:27 PM as posted by another person who has not looked at the evidence and also misquoted me. I don't think I said Fetzer was "an agent" anywhere in the interview or elsewhere. I DID say he was a handler - and if people read what I've posted, they should be able to understand why I said this.

In summary, just because someone appears to support presentation of evidence is not the same as wanting the truth to be as widely known as possible - unequivocally. It is some people's job to make sure doubt is kept "firmly in the picture" - certainty is NOT allowed. That is Fetzer's job. To encourage debate and discourage certainty - that's "handling" the information. I bet you never thought of that.

It's a clever disguise to, on the one hand, appear to support someone publicly whilst privately threatening them (as you will see in my book).

Dear Andrew, I have looked at your book and unfortunately, due to the feelings about Jim's somewhat prodding manner with Hutchison, it seems that all his forthright, if not completely won over, support of Judy was suddenly lost in defensiveness by Judy and you, or you.

I think Judy's work is fabulous overall (the one thing not handled being the fact that not all persons who disappeared may have been real other than database names and duplicate photo heads of some people, and her theory and its general basis would still stand).

I also love your openness to new ideas.

All that really happened with Hutchison is this:

Jim, is usually not too pushy but is direct, and sometimes blunt and biased at first, but can be swayed (in time) to at least hear most ideas. Hutchison, meanwhile, who seems indeed to have some meretricious things to say, also is a bit retiring emotionally and does not tend to defend himself or feel he needs to, if someone asks for any conventional background information. The combination of the two personality styles was unfortunate. If H had understood J's brief sally forth into asking credentials, and had been willing to answer without too much dislike of J, J would have maybe been for a while distrustful of whether H was telling the facts straight about what he'd found, but J would at least over time have discussed it more.

That's how he is.

I got him to do PID by being patient and pushy enough that his outbursts of incredulity became open to the idea at least as a prima facie argument. It took time.

Jim has always admired Judy's work, however, even though he's a bit uninformed as to the Hutchison and related "free energy" and so on. He does feature others who talk of some of these things now. ---- Heck, about 2 years ago he first HEARD of Tesla beyond the idea of AC vs DC current!!!!!!

:)

The support of people's RIGHT to think they're certain is fine with Jim. But there is also a role for reminding ourselves or being reminded that not all felt/thought certainties may be correct; and also that Jim too is learning, as we all are, as we go along, in some ways where he could be more certain already and isn't. Best wishes, Andrew! And thanks for the interview.

Sadly, you are making statements you cannot substantiate - and you are drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. There are other aspects to this that are not in my book and that you do not know about. If you have READ and digested what is in my book rather than just "looked" at it, and if you'd done your own additional research, you will see that Fetzer's actions - and current activity in relation to Dr Wood's research (go and look at recent archives of "Real Deal" and his "discussions" with Charles/Chuck Baldwyn) - you will find more evidence that Fetzer is not just "being dumb". He's encouraging others to be "dumb" too by claiming there isn't grounds to come to a conclusion. But of course, if you believe him, you won't see that will you? Sad that you can't use your name here.

Fetzer can't decide what happened on 911 - and I guess you can't either. He has no explanation for it - so he has to ask everyone else for one and also imply that the only one which explains all the available evidence (and has thus been used as a basis for a court case) is probably not correct.

Hey - let's debate - does the moon go round the earth in about 28 days? Maybe it doesn't. Maybe the sun doesn't rise in the east after all. Let's debate these things!

Key question - did the towers turn to dust or didn't they? What caused that? Jim Fetzer doesn't know. However, I do know - thanks to Dr Judy Wood.

judy wood offers an explanation for the lack of debris and bodies. IMO phil jayhan's explanation- evacualted, hollow, gutted, empty towers (built with intent to demo) with missing floors is more satisfying. No planes, no victims, no attacks- it was a media hoax complete with bad actors- a psyop

To both the Anon post of Feb 13 and to Andrew himself, this is Clare again (the first 2 Anon posts, of Feb 10 & 12):

Let's not confuse the emotional issues of Andrew and Judy about the very open-minded but careful thinker, Jim, who sometimes also does not absorb something fully or quickly -- thus complicating one's proper assessment of him.

And let's not confuse Jayhan's hollow towers possibility (which does not have to mean no floors, but rather either gutted floors and few tenants, or some upper floors left Tinker-Toy-like in structure beams without flooring and again, few tenants), with the idea that they also turned to dust.

In other words, just because Jayhan does not believe Judy's work has merit does not mean there was proper tenancy or no sham in the construction of the towers.

Judy's work on the dustification (as well as explosives for effect) is unassailable as a total evidence case, i.e., when all aspects of the destruction around and of the towers is considered; but again, just because her case is -- er -- solid, :) does not mean that her initial reason for thinking this through was wholly correct: the victims need not all have been dustified, and some seem to have been mere database names with no or with bad duplicate-face photos.

All these issues dovetail. They are not either or, necessarily.

Back to Jim:

Jim discusses with many people who disagree; Morgan Reynolds supports Judy's work (and so does Jim, by the way, though he is not SURE if there were nukes involved as well). Baldwin can express the argument for nukes, even rudely or forcefully, and there is no crime in that. It must be aired -- in both senses of the term -- and yet Jim always mentions the dustification and Judy's main lines of inquiry when he talks of the towers. He is not SURE if it was "directed energy" but he always mentions that.

Give him a break, Andrew. You know more about free energy ideas than Jim AND you're quick to accept them. I, too, know some things about free energy ideas ---- and tend to think there is more to be known there. But not ALL lines of inquiry into free energy are valid in the end, and many are too indeterminate in the public science at present.

Now, if we had access to black ops directly and there were no disinfo ploys, I'm sure we'd be able to learn more. THAT is the reasonable position on these things in general. We do know it exists but only if we're very careful to remember we don't have a lot of clear direct evidence with no questions about the sources (people) and the way it works for sure.

And before that, I remarked on Jim's slightly more cautious and less-informed mind about free energy ideas as well.

About the 28-day question, I think you should outline the question more fully and be kinder to your general audience, in always making your firmly held beliefs or even knowledge, prefaced with a reminder that there are some ways these things could be doubted, and show why you don't think they can be anymore. It would sound less too-credulous (I don't mean to debunker mindset a-holes, but rather to people who are as-yet-unconvinced and testing your ideas, for whether they are dismissable -- debunking in the scientific sense -- or acceptable -- in the scientific sense).

I tried to do that with every area of PID I discussed, not only the physical arguments: to mention how we know these things and where it's not clear if a line of inquiry applies, or where it might SEEM that a line of inquiry can't stand, but joined with yet another, it can ...

"Give him a break, Andrew." Oh dear Clare - you haven't read my book either! What on earth motivates you to comment without addressing evidence?

You wouldn't be sticking up for him cos you went on his podcast would you? Dear, dear, dear. You really have not looked - or if you have, mention none of the evidence in your lengthy post. Tut tut tut.

"Beliefs"? Oh dear. Seems you can't even distinguish between those and evidence. Looks like Fetzer has given you a lesson in redefining words (that's in my book too - but you either haven't looked at it or won't talk about it).

Good luck in your ignoring of evidence - or at least, not talking about it.

Dear Andrew, this PID forum is not for discussing your book. I am speaking of excerpts about Fetzer and having listened to broadcasts by both of you. The main point here, if you'd back up, is that I know the man and his type of openness and attitude to reason; sometimes he mistakes a line of inquiry as preposterous or uninteresting, and this affects his decisions; but he's a straight shooter in any normal sense.

He takes a long time to accept one idea over another if he does not know directly which line of inquiry has the right mixture of fact. In this case under discussion, it's clear from his broadcasts that he knows Judy's points well and feels he supports her general assessment: that there was dustification from something. He does not feel he should think it was definitely directed energy (undefined, in his view). This is in fact rational, simply because he feels it's an undefined mechanism as yet (DEW), though I think it is actually more supportable than that, and am much more aware of alternative science claims. But I've bothered to read more on odd hints that more in physics is going on than generally taught. It's not his main thing and he'd have a hard time focussing on sifting people's nonsense from the hints of real science, such as how Biefield and Brown's experiments were brilliant and rigorous, and imply many things -- but are republished in a book on UFO technology, so it would put Jim off.

I do know Judy's right it can't have been mere nukes (unless there was also some fairly small blast as part of the events), because the charge of a nuke would be (even if used in conjunction with other things) relatively spherical in force, not create destruction in place. I think he does not keep this in mind and have told him so. But exactly how DEWs work or what they are, he is not sure (except for a more general EMP device, as with Wellstone's death). Being unsure, and knowing nuclear effects were elevated, he has that side on as well as Morgan. But he loves Judy's book.

When he knows how DEWs could create nuclear effects, I am sure he will change that tune. Until then, don't be so sure of your "offense taken" from him AND his beliefs about DEWs (which are more cautionary about, than discrediting of, DEWs).

I do not defend him merely because I like him overall; I know his attitudes and have watched him resist certain things for a time (not only PID), and take a more cautious tone about some things than he should. I have also happily heard him expound on things I never would have taken seriously before. It's a mixed bag. So, yes, I know you believe a lot of true things -- know them. But some things you are not at times cautious in presenting it enough to show where we don't have all the info yet, and others may need to hear that. Best wishes.

And Andrew, I now realize I did read it (some time back) in full. The point here though is that just because he doesn't fully know what did it, he knows it was something weird, leaving a hitherto-unknown set of effects, and fully accepts Judy's points about that. Baldwin is really explaining -- by a more known means -- the nuclear change effects in the area, and Jim gives him a chance. He does not, as you should be able to tell, dismiss DEWs. He does not go to the level of certainty about a physic theory he does not understand. That is rational -- even though he could understand more if he'd go more out on a limb about the weird science books; but they are (you should admit!) hard to differentiate sometimes, as to what is baseless, what is partly right and important but looks baseless, and what is wholly right but looks baseless.

There. I hope that shows I understand your quandary as to why he could be less than perfectly accepting of the DEW means for what he does accept, which is Judy's dustification points. He does not yet see, understand, that nukes couldn't do that for sure.

Finally, dear Andrew (and I mean that!), the length of my reply was moot; it was a complex appeal to you. And I have no problem replying to you; and seemingly, Tina doesn't mind our exchange on the DEW case, which I defend everywhere.

On the other hand, this is a PID site. In what I believe a reasonable and justified defense of my interloquitor (Dr Fetzer), I presented an argument to counter yours about his nature, and if you have more to say, I await it.

But of course, here, the main issue is that you and Tina did a great interview on PID. I hope you enjoy my own, with Jim, if you listen to it. It takes a different tack: it attempts to appeal to people's emotional difficulties with the issues and present the bare bones of multiple lines of argument and context, to give them a sense of the pro-PID/PIR (Paul is Replaced) case.

I might add, for all here, that PIR is technically all we could know at this stage, if the forensics show a replacement. There are resistors (PIA-ers) who emphasize that we don't know death information directly; and in rigourous accuracy, they are correct. What we do know is that the forensics seem to be well laid out and comprehensive and comprehensible; the burden of proof is now on the anti-PIR people to show flaws with the forensics argument. But yes, technically speaking, we have no specific knowledge of the death --- with the exception of the content of the clues/hints, and maybe the dead body in MMT in the beginning of the Aunt's dream scene, which I found. Have you seen it and looked carefully at it as it shows in the second it's up? There's a bodybag on the left and a bit of blood or gross mouth at the top of the bag (snaps/ buttons on wrapping blanket or bag), and there's a dead head, slightly retouched, on the right. The photos were combined, and then composited as a totality, into the moving image of the Aunt crying during dreaming of "food" -- in death, we're food for the universe.

Have a listen to my show. I hope you and Tina enjoy as much as I did yours!

Thanks for your concern! Random PIA'ers on the Internet have posted my picture & even pictures of my house. One wrote, "we wouldn't want your PID beliefs to hurt your career, now would we?" Or something to that effect. So, in my opinion, my career, my home, & even my person were being threatened if I didn't shut up about Plastic Macca-roni Faul. Well, obviously, I didn't shut up, but I now sleep w/ a gun under my pillow.

I was just at a Walmart late this afternoon with my wife when I saw a LIFE magazine front page salute to Faul McCartney. Not being able to resist I flipped through the photos they had and I couldn't believe how obviously retouched all the pre'66 photos of JPM were to make JPM look like Faul. To say that it was as plain as the the nose on Cyrano de Bergerac would be very much an understatement. I thought that the internet photos pointed out by a member, here, were proof enough of the 1984-like re-editing of the past were enough. But, after seeing the complete re-forming of public memory in such a blatant way was simply shocking.Tina: please keep up the good work in exposing one of the greatest crimes of the last century.

Another update re: LIFE magazine:This last week they rolled out another edition,this time it was about The Beatles (no particular reason) and they did print genuine, unretouched photos of Paul. Unfortunately, most were either with his face obscured to some degree, or were too grainy to show any kind of detail - which, I believe, was quite intentional.

Tina- This was an excellent interview. I'm very new to PID research (the Beatles were before my time), but I'm completely convinced. Thanks for all of the research you have done into this. In this interview, as well as the one you just did on The Plane Truth radio show, I found you to be extremely articulate, organized and clear in your presentation of the key issues. I hope that you continue to do more radio interviews, as the truth really needs to get out.